It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Socorro Incident revisited

page: 2
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The hoax postulate has generally been disregarded because there were several witnesses other than Lonnie Zamora who saw the craft flying over the highway.




posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColeYounger
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The hoax postulate has generally been disregarded because there were several witnesses other than Lonnie Zamora who saw the craft flying over the highway.



There's no way to verify this, nor is there a way to tie any 'craft' flying around to this one on the ground. I wouldn't be too hasty to see them as supporting evidence. And, in fact if anything was flying around that doesn't make it non-terrestrial craft or manned by non-humans.



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColeYounger
Ray Sanford has been investigating the case for decades. He was a guest on C2C the other night. Sanford claims to have new evidence on the case, including an actual PHOTO of the craft. It's a pretty good interview. Jacques Vallee appears on the first hour of the show.


Ok, wait, he supposedly has a real photo, not a mock-up or artist rendition, of the craft? Where is it? I'm sure there are a lot of people who would really like to see this photo before it gets "stolen" by government officials!



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ColeYounger

I too heard the C@C broadcast and thought many of the things that were brought up about the debunkers and the truth of the matter according to the interview were well done..

Maybe UFOs flying thru our atmosphere is a try at flag waving to get our black budget boys to thinking about other ways of doing things.

It really does work if you look at our science fiction stories and the discoveries that resulted from someone's imaginative story .... Just a thought... Also no droid or drone could ever replace the excitement a sentient would feel when exploring a new world.. IMO.

P.S. Probably over 95% of all reported UFO/USO sighting are misidentified earthly thingies however even if the number is 99.99999 it really does not matter; all it takes is one sighting to be real and well, there goes all the debunking theories of too far, to hard, we can't do it so neither can they, out the door..



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 06:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColeYounger
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The hoax postulate has generally been disregarded because there were several witnesses other than Lonnie Zamora who saw the craft flying over the highway.
Balloons can fly over highways. I've seen them do it. Why would anybody think they can't?

The objections I've seen are pretty ridiculous but usually not that ridiculous. Usually what I hear is, no balloon can travel as fast as Zamora said that one did. This is a distortion of his testimony. He clearly said he doesn't remember exactly how long it took and he's only guessing, and anyway even people who think they are sure about time estimates can be way off. So there's no reason to do any silly speed calculation based on some time estimate which the witness says is unreliable and just a guess.

I've never heard a single good objection to the hoax explanation.

I agree with people who say that the Linus Pauling letter reply is less than airtight proof of a hoax, but still it's a pretty compelling piece of evidence to consider.

edit on 25-2-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

edit on 25-2-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColeYounger
Zamora said the craft had a red upside-down 'V' symbol.
An image created of the craft, based on Zamora's description:


As if the encounter itself isn't bizarre enough, there is a dispute on what symbol Lonnie Zamora sketched.
It's been reported that Zamora sketched a different symbol at the request of Air Force investigators who wanted the "alchemical" symbol on the craft to be kept from the public.
The symbol dispute explained.



Is it just me, or does that alleged symbol look awfully similar to something else?




posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   
New article with missing footage.



Update on the ‘Search for the Socorro UFO (Case) Footage’


John contacted Ben and said that he had recorded the long sought after footage on VHS from the TV show Sightings. He thought it was too good to be true but three days later John mailed him a CD of that exact footage, thus ending a long and strange search for this piece of history. This is a great example of how working together, sharing data, and investigative skills resulted in us finding the footage.

The film shows the family at the site just several days after the landing, and brief shots of the landing area. It’s a great addition to the case file and is another piece of the Socorro event history..






link

edit on 22-4-2015 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   
My main issue with the case is the thrust take off, it doesnt prove it wasnt alien, but imo it would be much better if it just lifted off like Westall.

Kevin Randle has a few pages as it directly relates to the hoax idea, along with some LIVELY discussion in the comments section at the bottom.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

David Rudiak has this to say about the original hoax theory in the first link


The principle "witness" produced by Bragalia is Sterling Colgate. As to Colgate's motives in declaring it a "hoax", Ray Stanford's observations on theparacast.com the other day are highly relevant.

It turns out Colgate was declaring the whole incident a hoax to reporters within only days of the incident. When pressed by reporters why it was a hoax, Colgate answered that he knew as an astrophysicist that interstellar travel was impossible, therefore it couldn't have been an alien craft, therefore it must have been a hoax perpetrated by his own students.



I am impressed by Hynek's thoroughness in recognizing the stability of the landers, hopefully Rudiak explained it correctly, from Link 1


When the diagonals of a quadrilateral are perpendicular (as was the case with the Socorro object to within measurement error), the midpoints of its sides and the feet of the perpendiculars dropped from them on the opposite sides all lie on a circle described about the mean center of the vertices. (from Brand's Vector and Tensor Analysis)

In plainer language, the four points Hynek was referring to that lie on the common circle are the centers of the sides of the quadrilateral connecting the four landing impressions (not the landing impressions themselves, which will not necessarily lie on a common circle).

Three random points will always define a circle, but, in general, a random four-sided figure will only have three of its four midpoints lying on one circle, the fourth lying off the circle (unless the diagonals form right angles, like at Socorro).

In addition, in the Socorro case, the center of the defined circle lay directly over the main burn area where Zamora saw the object take off vertically (and where the mesquite bush was cut cleanly in half at the edge of the burn). For a VTOL craft with a single thruster, the best engineering placement of the thruster will be under the center of gravity of the craft (such as is the case with the Lunar Lander). Therefore the center of the circle over the burn area defines the center of gravity of the craft; by symmetry, all weight is evenly distributed around any circle drawn around this center.

The engineering significance of this is that the weight of the object is evenly distributed on the centers of the sides, and as a corollary, each landing pad also bears equal weight. In other words, well thought out, good engineering design that is highly unlikely to happen by pure chance had this been any sort of hoax (and would have required highly sophisticated hoaxers.


edit on 22-4-2015 by 111DPKING111 because: added section on the landers

edit on 22-4-2015 by 111DPKING111 because: added external quotes for readability



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 10:54 PM
link   
For anyone who finds this thread

Another thread on this sighting was recently posted.

And Kevin Randle has done another blog on it. See comments at the bottom for detailed discussion.

Ben Moss gets into a lengthy discourse about the blue flame not being used as propulsion which is my main issue with the case. That kind of propulsion doesnt sound very alien to me, but maybe hes right and craft used anti-grav technology instead, still on the fence in that respect.

After reviewing the various arguments, I guess the oddest thing about the case is it should be solved, unless it was aliens...



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
David Rudiak has this to say about the original hoax theory in the first link
That's probably the weakest argument I've ever heard why it can't be a hoax, and basically I've never seen a single strong argument. Seems like some people have a need to believe it wasn't. Whether or not it was a hoax, it was certainly possible to be one, I know of no aspect of the case that some clever university students couldn't have pulled off.

As you yourself point out, what Stirling Colgate said about interstellar travel being more or less impossible is true if the type of technology used in the likely hoax was used, rocket propulsion (Current chemical propulsion systems such as used on the Saturn V rocket or the Space Shuttle simply do not release enough energy to address the problem.)


originally posted by: 111DPKING111
After reviewing the various arguments, I guess the oddest thing about the case is it should be solved, unless it was aliens...
Dr Greg Little says it's "certainly" a hoax, though he doesn't elaborate on his basis for saying that beyond saying university students did it.

Why Do Ufologists Largely Ignore the Most Scientific Field Study of UFOs Ever Conducted?


Nearly all of the ufologists cite the Roswell and the Socorro, NM cases in their lists, but both of these cases are certainly hoaxes. The Socorro case has recently been shown to be a hoax perpetrated by university students and as Andrew Collins and I will show soon, Roswell was precisely what the Air Force has said it was. The "crash mystery" and fake documents that emerged to support Roswell were concocted by ufologists and compounded by psychological factors involved in long-term memory as well as out-an-out fabrications made by "witnesses" who actually were not there.

I can only say I see no reason to exclude a hoax and the research showing that there were organized groups of students on campus who liked to play technical pranks was interesting. Even if the students who did the hoax came forward and admitted that they engineered the hoax, I think some people still wouldn't believe them.

edit on 2016729 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I think it does have a hoaxy feel for whats its worth - 2 things in white trench coats, the large symbol on an egg shaped craft.

Things against the hoax though

- other witnesses showed up shortly after and the consensus among those who have walked the site is it would have been impossible to get away unseen unless everyone was in on the hoax.

- radiation levels caused pictures to become fogged

- imprints left by the landing feet showed the soil compressed from a significant weight.


The craft just doesnt sound ET to me, but again, it is strange once you put the pieces together, that this case should have an answer if it was terrestrial.

The debate continues for anyone wishing to read or join in



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 01:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
Things against the hoax though

- other witnesses showed up shortly after and the consensus among those who have walked the site is it would have been impossible to get away unseen unless everyone was in on the hoax.
hahaha, that is hilarious! Did you read Zamora's official report? When it started taking off he was running away, just glancing back, but he lost his glasses and kept running away without them so even when he glanced back, he couldn't see too well without his glasses, but yeah nobody could have gotten away, seriously? That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.

Zamora's Report

As soon as saw flame and heard roar, turned away, ran away from object but did turn head toward object. Bumped leg on car--back Fender area. Car facing southwest. Glasses fell to ground, left them there. ran to north--car between him and object.

Object was oval, in shape. It was smooth--no windows or doors. As roar started, it was still on or near ground. Noted red lettering of some type (see illustration). Insignia was about 2 1/2' high and about 2' wide I guess. Was in middle of object. . .Object still like aluminum-white.

After fell by car and glasses fell off, kept running to north, with car between me and object. Glanced back couple of times.
So nobody could have fled the scene while Zamora was running away from the scene after his glasses fell off? Then, he jumped over the hill, where he could see above the hill but not through the hill:


I was still running and I jumped just over the hill--I stopped because I did not hear the roar. I was scared of the roar, and I had planned to continue running down the hill.
So now that he's jumped over the hill he has the hill partially blocking his vision.

The NM state policeman showed up minutes later but while Zamora was fleeing the scene there was ample opportunity for the two people in white coveralls to do the same. It's ridiculous to claim he would have seen them fleeing, while he was pre-occupied with running away himself, without his glasses, and jumping over a hill that surely didn't aid his view of the scene.

edit on 201682 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hello Arby,

I've always liked this story because it is one that sticks out in my mind since I was a kid. I still think this is a genuine UFO (in that it is still unidentified). But the description of the craft by Zamora and trace evidence points to something that was entirely possible with terrestrial technology of the day. The hoax theory is not implausible and compared to an ET spacecraft seems much more likely. It feels to me that after 50+ years we really should know who did it and why.

But we don't and no hoax has ever been proven.

Is this letter with handwritten notes really all we have to point to a hoax?



Even if it was a military or NASA test you'd have thought that would have come out by now. But I don't know of anything putting this case beyond reasonable doubt. So it's still a bit of a head scratcher.



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 01:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
Is this letter with handwritten notes really all we have to point to a hoax?
That depends on how much honesty you attribute to Anthony Bragalia. I happen to disagree with him greatly on some issues, but he claims to be accurately portraying his research findings in this case and despite my other disagreements with him, I find that claim plausible.

He has written 5 articles on the topic that I'm aware of, though I think none of the 5 articles survived in the locations where originally posted though the reposted article at link 4 still works. I have found some in different archive locations. These are the titles/dates of the articles:

1. Socorro Hoax Exposed (Famous UFO Sighting Was a College Prank) / 2009-09
2. Socorro UFO Hoax Part Two: Getting Closer to the Culprits / 2009-10
3. Socorro UFO Hoax: Physical Evidence Points to a Prank / 2009-11
4. The Ultimate Secret of Socorro Finally Told: New Details in World-Famous 1964 UFO Hoax / 2012
5. Archived College Photo Reveals How They Hoaxed The Socorro UFO / 2014

Original links:
1. ufocon.blogspot.com...
2. ufocon.blogspot.com...
3. ufocon.blogspot.com...
4. unknown, re-posted at kevinrandle.blogspot.com...
5. ufocon.blogspot.com...

According to the 4th link, in addition to Colgate's written confirmation it was a hoax, additional confirmation comes from NMIT professor and philanthropist Dr. Frank Etscorn, and from an un-named person who was a student at the time, the last of course being difficult to confirm.

Perhaps the most interesting alleged evidence surfaced in the 5th source, a photo of a balloon supposedly from the Langmuir Laboratory for Atmospheric Research, a facility at the same school which began construction on a new building in 1962 and by 1964 they had access to and were launching all kinds of balloons. This photo is dated to "about 1965" and it has a lot in common with Zamora's description. When they asked him "what does it look like?", he replied that "It looks like a balloon", which this certainly does, and if you rotate it so those fins were touching the ground, they might resemble "legs" or "landing struts".


The photo appeared in Bragalia's article with this caption:

The photo and accompanying notation above is courtesy the files of the Langmuir Laboratory for Atmospheric Research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology in Socorro, NM.
According to school documents, the photo was taken in “approximately” 1965 in the area south of town where newly-acquired, advanced experimental balloons had been sent aloft by college students and department personnel for the prior two years.
THE PHOTO AND ZAMORA’S TESTIMONY- A MATCH
Zamora would have been wholly unfamiliar with such an experimental balloon, introduced to the area the very year of his sighting. But four key elements are strikingly common to the photo and Officer Zamora’s testimony- the craft’s shape, features, size and color.

That does fit Zamora's description pretty well, I can see why someone would call that "egg-shaped", and say "it looks like a balloon", as Zamora did, and it's about the right size, shape, and color with similar features.

Whether that's a photo of the same balloon used in the alleged hoax I suppose is still somewhat speculative, but I do find it interesting that this nearby research facility had access to many different types of research balloons, given Zamora's description of the UFO that "It looks like a balloon." Bragalia goes into detail about how that balloon matches Zamora's description of the craft’s shape, features, size and color, which I also think it does.

edit on 201683 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Maverick7
Non-terrestrials who would be 10K to 1M years more advanced than we would not use full-sized atmospheric craft to do any exploration.

Virtual, nanotech, remote viewed, holographic tech and stuff more advanced than we could know. To suggest they'd come here and use "just past Earth 21st century aircraft in the atmosphere" is like saying if we went back in time to check out the Vikings we'd use advanced wooden ships. It's laughable.

If Lonnie saw a craft it was one of ours.


Because you know what extraterrestrials would do... LOL

That's a good one...

Actually where ET's are concerned, all bets are off. There are no rules of what they may or may not do, and since they aren't human, they don't need to do what humans think they should do.

Lonnie saw what he saw. And he saw small occupants. Maybe you think those were space camp cadets?



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 02:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Lonnie saw what he saw. And he saw small occupants. Maybe you think those were space camp cadets?
He called them "people" in his official report, though in a later interview he said he couldn't confirm they were "people", only that they were in white coveralls and shaped like people. This is from his official report, where he didn't refer to them as "occupants" and he never saw them get into the thing:


Saw two people in white coveralls very close to the object. One of these persons seemed to turn and look straight at my car and seemed startled--seemed to jump quickly somewhat...

The only time I saw these two persons was when I had stopped, for possibly two seconds or so, to glance at the object. I don't recall noting any particular shape or possibly any hats, or headgear. These persons appeared normal in shape--but possibly they were small adults or large kids.
Small adults or large kids could be a fitting description for university students as Bragalia hypothesizes.



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I think another good question would be how could university students, (small ones) be piloting some sort of exotic egg shaped craft in the middle of the desert in the '60's.

I just don't see it as likely although anything is possible.



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

From the information Arby provided there is nothing mentioned that anyone actually got into the craft to 'pilot' it. Zamora only mentioned he saw two people near to it.

The hoax explanation seems to revolve around a group of people wanting to fool Zamora and actually receiving worldwide coverage. Because of that they do not want the publicity and are not interested in coming forward and admitting it. It would seem that whatever caused the trace evidence was well within the capabilities of human beings of the day.

But with only circumstantial evidence the case remains unsolved.



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I think another good question would be how could university students, (small ones) be piloting some sort of exotic egg shaped craft in the middle of the desert in the '60's.

I just don't see it as likely although anything is possible.



The question I have is how do you turn the witnesses own words into (small people) " piloting some sort of exotic egg shaped craft"


Saw two people in white coveralls very close to the object. One of these persons seemed to turn and look straight at my car and seemed startled--seemed to jump quickly somewhat...

The only time I saw these two persons was when I had stopped, for possibly two seconds or so, to glance at the object. I don't recall noting any particular shape or possibly any hats, or headgear. These persons appeared normal in shape--but possibly they were small adults or large kids.

How tall would "small adults or large kids" be? its kind of ambiguous. large kids could be 6 foot and small adults could be 5 foot. so somewhere between 5 and 6 foot? the average height for adult men is 5 feet 10 inches. glancing at them for 2 seconds possibly? So they didn't have large heads and weren't the size of midgets but they were possibly small adults or large kids that were normal shaped. So where are you getting the "piloting exotic egg shaped craft" from when he said "egg shaped balloon" and never describes anyone flying the thing? why twist witness words?



posted on Aug, 3 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColeYounger
This incident is considered one of the most famous in ufology. The Socorro Incident, also known as the Lonnie Zamora incident was a UFO close encounter which occurred on Friday, April 24, 1964, at about 5:50 p.m., on the southern outskirts of Socorro, New Mexico.
Zamora said he saw an egg-shaped UFO, with two occupants "the size of 10-year olds".


I assume that given enough time all old, unsolved UFO reports will see the light of day in this and other UFO forums. Today, it's the Aliens and UFOs forum's turn. A search here for "socorro zamora" returns 119 results, meaning the topic has been beaten to death. But, no, there's always "new revelations", hence this thread which really doesn't anything new, just rehashing.

How can we trust Zamora's description when: "one has to remember that Officer Zamora was rather far away and wearing corrective glasses for inferior eyesight." UFO Conjecture(s) ufocon.blogspot.com...

How corrective was his inferior eyesight? Sure, he was a police officer driving a patrol car so he must have been able to distinguish distant details. But for the height of the two "occupants" what did he have to use for reference?


Skeptics have suggested ridiculous hoax theories. One theory is that high-school students played an elaborate prank. Famous skeptic Philip Klass said Zamora witnessed ball lightning. Another popular theory was that Zamore had just seen a 'dust devil' whirlwind.


When an unbelievable UFO-related event happens the non-witnesses, especially UFO skeptics, come out of the woodwork and attack the witness without considering their negative, non-qualified comments/insults.


Reports by authorities, including the Air Force, were fairly riddled with errors. Zamora wasn't the only witness, but the report claimed he was. Although there was definite physical evidence left behind, the report said no trace evidence was left.


Please include other witness testimony, if known. Just saying Zamora wasn't the only witness leaves us wanting to know more. And describe the "definite physical evidence left behind," to save us having to look for it. Wikipedia says: "Zamora only caught a brief sight of the two people in white coveralls beside the "car". He recalls nothing special about them. "I don't recall noting any particular shape or possibly any hats, or headgear. These persons appeared normal in shape — but possibly they were small adults or large kids."


Ray Sanford has been investigating the case for decades. He was a guest on C2C the other night. Sanford claims to have new evidence on the case, including an actual photo of the craft. It's a pretty good interview. Jacques Vallee appears on the first hour of the show.


This case was over decades ago. Sanford wasted decades of his life pursuing info. An actual photo of the craft? Come on! Where did the photographer come from if Zamora was alone? Again, from Wikipedia: " Zamora notes no other possible witnesses except possibly the car in front, which he estimates might have heard the noise but not seen the flame because it would be behind the brow of the hill from their viewpoint."


Zamora said the craft had a red upside-down 'V' symbol.


The description of the symbol is in contention and one has to wonder about aliens finding it necessary to have markings on their craft. And normal-looking aliens in white coveralls? What happened to the good, ol' "greys"?


An image created of the craft, based on Zamora's description:


Whose version is the real one? Zamora's, his wife's, Sanford's?


As if the encounter itself isn't bizarre enough, there is a dispute on what symbol Lonnie Zamora sketched.
It's been reported that Zamora sketched a different symbol at the request of Air Force investigators who wanted the "alchemical" symbol on the craft to be kept from the public.


And why alchemical? Full Definition of alchemy. 1 : a medieval chemical science and speculative philosophy aiming to achieve the transmutation of the base metals into gold, the discovery of a universal cure for disease, and the discovery of a means of indefinitely prolonging life.


edit on 07/03/2016 by klassless because: To correct grammar.


edit on 07/03/2016 by klassless because: To correct grammar.

edit on 07/03/2016 by klassless because: (no reason given)







 
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join